Adobe Certified Expert Test for InDesign CS3

[AdobeAce]

Hi All,

I just took and passed the Recertification test for InDesign.

As has been rumored all over the Web, the test was extremely hard. Lots of instructors I know, who I consider top experts, failed the test.

Now I'm not complaining that the test covered lots of obscure stuff that no one will ever teach. Experts should know enough of this obscure stuff in order to pass. What I object to is the way the questions and answers were worded. This test was definitely written by people who are not writers. If the questions and/or answers are not clearly written, what is the test actually testing? Is it the ability of the Instructor in interpret poor writing? YES!

And like I said, it's not just me. Check out this discussion on InDesign Secrets -- http://indesignsecrets.com/crazy-indesign-cs3-ace-practice-questions.php If Anne-Marie Concepcion along with lots of other top experts are complaining about the test, there's a problem with the test.

Ace

[AdobeAce]

I can't believe I'm saying this the day after that ridiculous IDCS3 test. I'm gong to start putting together my study materials for the Illustrator ACE exam. Then Acrobat.

I hope my brain doesn't turn to mush.

Ace

[kialua]

Interesting. Now that you've passed it would they let you maybe rewrite the questions so they are understood?

[AdobeAce]

Hi kialua,

That would be unfair to the people who have already taken the test.

Maybe Adobe will consider having writers write the CS4 tests. With all the experts out there who are also great writers (Scott Kelby, Dave Cross, Terry White, David Blattner, Anne-Marie Concepcion, etc.), it shouldn't be hard to find someone.

Ace

[kialua]

I see. Yes maybe for the next test then with the others. Here's hoping.

[ldrain]

from the little bit of info i read from the linked site, it seems as though the questions were written in a different language and then translated to english. the whole grammar is off.

if i took that test, i would spend most of the time correcting the sentences and completely forget about what i was doing. what a hassle!

[The Repro Kid]

you've got to be kidding. is it that bad? can anyone give a link to the sample questions? I'd love to see it. I've always been a skilled test taker, whether I know a subject well or not. I'd like to see the bad english, and/or trick questions.

[edit] uh whoops, the link is in the first post. Well I guess I'm already failing :D

[The Repro Kid]

Okay I looked at the first question:

A QuarkXPress 4.0 document contains embedded images, which were created in Quark XTension. You want to open the QuarkXPress 4.0 file in InDesign. What should you do?

and I looked at the answer

the answer is “A. Remove the images that were created in Quark XTension.”

I did not read A. M. Concepcion's entire article, way too tired this week to digest that, (or type her whole name for that matter) however, has it ever occurred to you test takers that you are getting a raw deal?

Yes the translation factor is blatant, yes the premise of the xtension was ridiculous, but wait... there's more! The entire premise is false, because there is No Possible Way to Embed an Image in QuarkXPress. NO POSSIBLE WAY. The image must be linked.

With that type of misuse of terminology the entire test should be nullified. It is completely bogus.

End of Story.

[edit] Now that I am re-reading my post I am remembering back to quark 4 days. Quark 5 introduced vector drawing tools. With quark 4 there may have been an extension made to add those vector tools, before they were incorporated into version 5. In this case the question should read "contains embedded images, which were created with a Quark XTension" not much difference, definitely a translation thing. I've never used this xtension, so I don't know if somehow it embedded the image it created. To be perfectly honest, this is really a quark question. But when in doubt, when converting quark to Ind, you must delete any element that gives you problems. Since a non-linked image in quark is such a weird thing, it stands to reason that it should be deleted if you are having trouble importing the quark file into InD.

That being said, the mere act of importing a quark file into InD breaks one of my "Best Practices" rules. When changing programs in a work flow, always re-work an existing file in it's native program, and always make new files in the program to which you are migrating your workflow. In other words, if it was a quark file, edit it in quark, regardless of the fact that you are switching to InD. If it is a new file, make it in the program to which you are migrating, in other words, make all new files in InD. Eventually you will have switched over to InD, but you will not have stupid little headaches like this question begs to invite. I learned that particular Best Practice back in the Pagemaker to quark migration and have not forgotten the valuable lesson. Just because Adobe would like you to think you can convert your quark files to InD, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so

[AdobeAce]

Hi Repro,

You're right! It is always better to recreate the file in the new program.

InDesign opens files from Quark pretty well, but the text WILL rerun and there will probably be Runaround-to-Wrap conversion problems. A lot people who are converting Quark files to ID no longer have Quark on their computers, so they have no choice. There is a third party Plugin called Q2ID that does a great job. Still problems, but it works on Quark 4, 5, and 6 files.

One local ad agency has me converting a lot of their layouts for one of their clients who switched to InDesign from Quark. If you know what to look for, the conversion process works very well.

Ace

PS: Do you ever sleep? :D

[The Repro Kid]

Hi Repro,

You're right! It is always better to recreate the file in the new program. :eek::eek: No, no, no! That's not what I was saying! This comes from my "Production Artist Brain" It is a complete waste of time to convert files. It wastes unnecessary time, invites mistakes, causes headaches, is non-productive, and someone has to pay for all wasted time. What I said is always continue to edit an existing file in its native format. Eventually the file will see an end of life and will not longer be needed. The only time I'd remake a file is if the file has no foreseeable end of life and it must be re-made. And even then I'd give about a year before making that decision, in order to get a firm grasp of the new program so I could re-make the file with speed and efficiency.

InDesign opens files from Quark pretty well, but the text WILL rerun and there will probably be Runaround-to-Wrap conversion problems.For that reason I prefer to just roll up my sleeves and re-make the file properly, so I have total control, as long as the file is not too long. A good production artist can remake any file, as long as it's not too big, in about an hour, and make it identical to the original. No pit falls, no worries.

A lot people who are converting Quark files to ID no longer have Quark on their computers, so they have no choice. There is a third party Plugin called Q2ID that does a great job. Still problems, but it works on Quark 4, 5, and 6 files.That is just incredibly poor planning and shortsightedness. Until a program truly dies, Paying a $200 upgrade fee for existing software pays for itself in one day if you are a small business. And most large corps won't change their software to the latest craze because until the bitter end, because that too is then too costly. To this day, Teleflora/FIJI Water still uses Quark, I know I was there. We had so many vendors, some only took quark files, some only took InD files. I had to remake many of the Teleflora Agenicy's quark ads in InD because the vendor wanted InD. And although I made all my new files in InD, some new files I had to make in Quark because of vendor requirements.

One local ad agency has me converting a lot of their layouts for one of their clients who switched to InDesign from Quark...As they say in Hoolywood, that's nice work if you can get it ;)

PS: Do you ever sleep? :DHey I got 6.5 hours last night. Although it's not my usual 8.

[AdobeAce]

That is just incredibly poor planning and shortsightedness. Until a program truly dies, Paying a $200 upgrade fee for existing software pays for itself in one day if you are a small business.


I'm actually talking about a huge company. And I understand their thinking. They tell their art directors that after a certain number of months, Quark will no longer be available on their computers. This is the only way to get this group to take the time to learn InDesign. Knowing the people involved, it's the only way to get some of them to switch. Seems a little harsh, but it will work.

All easy Quark changes will actually been done in the studio.

Ace

:D

[The Repro Kid]

Yes Ace, that's true.

Although a better business practice to be sure is to upgrade to InDesign and still keep quark to work on legacy files until their end of life, and make all new files in Design. It saves a company huge amounts of money in errors resulting from converting, remaking, etc, and saves countless man hours of unnecessary work. Many corporations choose that route. I was most impressed by Roll International, who's holding companies include Teleflora, FIJI Water, PomWonderful, Sunkist, Paramount Farms, and more, for choosing that route and It seemed to be working very well for them when I was there last year.

[Teacher617]

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is a science that goes along with writing good test questions. There is more to it than just good grammar and sentence structure. One has to evaluate each choice of answers for all of its possible interpretations. Each choice must address an aspect of the original question, with some possibility of being correct; those who know little on the topic will choose an "obvious" answer which isn't the best or most complete answer.

Writing questions that get to those deeper facets of a topic is difficult. Then there is the necessity of evaluating the validity of a question. How many test takers get it wrong? If too many, the question needs to be revised or thrown out. A good (valid) test is constantly reworked and revised, not only due to new content being included, but as a result of statistical analysis of the test itself.

I don't know the process used to create the Adobe certification tests, but for those who take them, the stakes are pretty high (time and money).

[AdobeAce]

Hi Teacher617,

Well Adobe has proven that they understand the science of creating great computer graphics software. But they have failed miserably in the science of creating tests.

A test should measure the students' understanding of the software, not their ability to interpret a poorly written question. In some cases the logic involved in choosing the right answer, never came into play. Sometimes I read the question four or five times and had no idea what they were even asking. I kept looking for answer "E. None of the above" or "F. There is really no correct answer because the question makes no sense!"

Ace

PS: Looking forward to the Illustrator test!
:D

[The Repro Kid]

As a teacher, I can tell you that there is a science that goes along with writing good test questions. There is more to it than just good grammar and sentence structure. One has to evaluate each choice of answers for all of its possible interpretations. Each choice must address an aspect of the original question, with some possibility of being correct; those who know little on the topic will choose an "obvious" answer which isn't the best or most complete answer.

Writing questions that get to those deeper facets of a topic is difficult. Then there is the necessity of evaluating the validity of a question. How many test takers get it wrong? If too many, the question needs to be revised or thrown out. A good (valid) test is constantly reworked and revised, not only due to new content being included, but as a result of statistical analysis of the test itself.

I don't know the process used to create the Adobe certification tests, but for those who take them, the stakes are pretty high (time and money).

Well, yes. that's why I made my "second pass" on the that first question, and started remembering about Earlier versions of quark that had pen tool extensions. When I'm taking any test I don't dwell on questions if I don't at first don't understand them. I'll skip the question and come back to it later, in hopes of finding clues, jarring my memory, etc. The question I used for my example, that I took from the linked article, was tricky, but that may be the kind of level the test is designed to be.

[Teacher617]

Exactly what they teach about "how" to take tests, Repro Kid! Gotta be smarter than the test sometimes. :)

[AdobeAce]

Hi Guys,

If this was some other multiple choice test, I would totally agree with this method of test taking. But, if I followed this very logical approach in taking the InDesign test, I would have skipped and come back to half of the questions.

Adobe's past tests were hard, but this was ridiculous. In all the other Adobe tests that I taken, you could not use the "smart" approach to taking a multiple choice test -- eliminate the one or two totally silly answers. Then choose the one that sounds like the best choice of the remaining answers. If you didn't know the subject matter, there was no way you could eliminate ANY of the answers. These tests were tough, but fair. If you knew the features at an expert level, you passed the test. If you didn't know your stuff, you failed. Wow! What a concept, a real test of knowledge!

I find it interesting that after over two years of writing Layers Magazine Tips of the Day, I had a hard time with this test. :eek:

I've been too busy with freelance to study for the Illustrator exam, but at some point, I have to jump into it.

Happy studying,

Ace

:D

[AdobeAce]

Well, yes. that's why I made my "second pass" on the that first question, and started remembering about Earlier versions of quark that had pen tool extensions. When I'm taking any test I don't dwell on questions if I don't at first don't understand them. I'll skip the question and come back to it later, in hopes of finding clues, jarring my memory, etc. The question I used for my example, that I took from the linked article, was tricky, but that may be the kind of level the test is designed to be.

Hi Repro,

Remember the Pasteboard Xtension? I think every computer I knew of at that time had the Pasteboard Xtension Exterminator. Or the layout could not opened. Talk about an poorly conceived add on.

Ahh the good old days,

Ace

[kialua]

Oh my gosh, don't even mention Pasteboard Xtensions. Wasn't that fun? ;)

[AdobeAce]

Hi kialua,

That was one of the most frustrating episodes of my whole computer career. I had gotten a whole bunch of existing Quark files from a freelance client and couldn't open any of them. What a nightmare! Pasteboard Exterminator fixed the problem, but it took a while to figure that out. There were no forums like this that I knew of back in the Dark Ages of computer graphic design.

Ace
:D

PS: I'm surprised that a question about this was not on the InDesign CS3 test (just to get back on topic). :D

[AdobeAce]

Hi All,

I just took and passed the ACE test for Illustrator. Nowhere near as hard as the InDesign test. At least the questions and/or answers were not totally incomprehensible.

My major complaint is I spent far to much time studying new features. I probably would have passed this test without knowing the new features at all. As a "upgrade" test, I don't think it did the job.

I've always said that Adobe listens. :D And they proved it again. According to David Blattner (InDesign Secrets) the test for InDesign CS3 has been rewritten because of all of the complaints. http://indesignsecrets.com/update-on-indesign-cs3-certification-exams.php

Ace

[Teacher617]

Congrats, Ace!
:D

[AdobeAce]

Hi Teacher617,

Thanks!

Now the question is -- Do I want to take the time to study for the Acrobat test as well?
Maybe this summer.

Ace
:D

[beauty123]

Thanks for this valuable thread!

____________________

[The Repro Kid]

beauty123

Reminds of that movie. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Back Door Beauty.